The Pacific will no longer stand for Australia's inaction

Pacific Island nations will no longer stand for
Australia's inaction on climate change

The Pacific Islands Forum
meeting in Tuvalu this week has ended in open division over
climate change. Australia ensured its official communique watered
down commitments to respond to climate change, gaining a
hollow victory.

Traditionally, communiques capture
the consensus reached at the meeting. In this case, the
division on display between Australia and the Pacific meant
the only commitment is to commission yet another report into
what action needs to be taken.

The cost of
Australia’s victory is likely to be great, as it questions
the sincerity of Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s
commitment to “step
up” engagement in the Pacific.

Australia’s stance on
climate change has become untenable in the Pacific. The
inability to meet Pacific Island expectations will erode
Australia’s influence and leadership credentials in
the region, and provide opportunities for other countries to
grow influence in the region.

An unprecedented
show of dissent

When Morrison arrived in Tuvalu,
he was met with an uncompromising mood. In fact, the text of
an official communique was only finished after 12 hours of
pointed
negotiations.

While the “need for urgent,
immediate actions on the threats and challenges of climate
change”, is acknowledged, the Pacific was looking for
action, not words.

What’s more, the document
reaffirmed that “strong political leadership to advance
climate change action” was needed, but leadership from
Australia was sorely missing. It led Tuvaluan Prime Minister
Enele Sopoaga to note:

I think we can say we should’ve
done more work for our
people.

Presumably, he would have
hoped Australia could be convinced to take more climate
action.

In an unprecedented show of dissent,
smaller Pacific Island countries produced the alternative Kainaki
II Declaration. It captures the mood of the Pacific in
relation to the existential threat posed by climate change,
and the need to act decisively now to ensure their survival.

And it details the commitments needed to
effectively address the threat of climate change. It’s
clear nothing short of transformational change is needed to
ensure their survival, and there is rising frustration in
Australia’s repeated delays to take effective
action.

Australia hasn’t endorsed the alternative
declaration and Canberra has signalled once and for all that
compromise on climate change is not possible. This is not
what Pacific leaders hoped for and will come at a diplomatic
cost to Australia.

Canberra
can’t buy off the Pacific

Conflict had already
begun brewing in the lead up to the Pacific Islands Forum.
The Pacific Islands Development Forum – the brainchild of
the Fijian government, which sought a forum to engage with
Pacific Island Nations without the influence of Australia
and New Zealand – released the the Nadi
Bay Declaration in July this year.

This
declaration called on coal producing countries like
Australia to cease all production within a decade.

But it’s clear Canberra believes compromise of
this sort on climate change would undermine Australia’s
economic growth and this is the key stumbling block to
Australia answering its Pacific critics with action.

As Sopoaga said to Morrison:

You are concerned about saving
your economy in Australia […] I am concerned about saving
my people in Tuvalu.

And a day
before the meeting, Canberra announced half a billion
dollars to tackle climate change in the region.
But it received a lukewarm reception from the Pacific.

The message is clear: Canberra cannot buy off the
Pacific. In part, this is because Pacific Island countries
have new options, especially from
China, which has offered Pacific island countries
concessional loans.

China is becoming an
attractive alternate partner

As tension built at
the Pacific Island Forum meeting, New Zealand Foreign
Minister Winston Peters argued
there was a double standard with respect to the treatment of
China on climate change.

China is the world’s
largest emitter of climate change gasses, but if there is a
double standard it’s of Australia’s making.

Australia purports to be part of the Pacific
family that can speak and act to protect the interests of
Pacific Island countries in the face of China’s
“insidious” attempts to gain influence through “debt
trap” diplomacy. This is where unsustainable loans are
offered with the aim of gaining political
advantage.

But countering Chinese influence in the
Pacific is Australia’s prime security interest, and is a
secondary
issue for the Pacific.

But unlike Australia,
China has never claimed the moral high ground and provides
an attractive alternative partner, so it will likely gain
ground in the battle for influence in the
Pacific.

For the Pacific Island Forum itself,
open dissent is a very un-Pacific outcome. Open dissent
highlights the strains in the region’s premier
intergovernmental organisation.

Australia and (to
a lesser extent) New Zealand’s dominance has often been a
source of criticism, but growing confidence among Pacific
leaders has changed diplomatic dynamics forever.

This new
pacific diplomacy has led Pacific leaders to more
steadfastly identify their security interests. And for them,
the need to respond to climate change is non-negotiable.

If winning the geopolitical contest with China in
Pacific is Canberra’s priority, then far greater
creativity will be needed as meeting the Pacific half way on
climate change is a prerequisite for
success.

Scoop Citizen Members and ScoopPro Organisations are the lifeblood of Scoop.

20 years of independent publishing is a milestone, but your support is essential to keep Scoop thriving. We are building on our offering with new In-depth Engaged Journalism platform - thedig.nz.
Find out more and join us:

ALSO:

In the circumstances, yesterday’s move by Lam to scrap – rather than merely suspend – the hated extradition law that first triggered the protests three months ago, seems like the least she can do. It may also be too little, too late. More>>

The DOC-led draft Biodiversity Strategy seeks a “shared vision.” But there are more values and views around wildlife than there are species. How can we hope to agree on the shape of Aotearoa’s future biota? More>>

We are in a moment of existential peril, with interconnected climate and biodiversity crises converging on a global scale to drive most life on Earth to the brink of extinction… These massive challenges can, however, be reframed as a once in a lifetime opportunity to fundamentally change how humanity relates to nature and to each other. Read on The Dig>>